Jump to content

71chally

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,467

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 71chally

  1. 71chally
    The tailplane mod I've come up with is not only a correction for the horrible affair in the newer Airfix Canberra kits, but it is the only true representation of the Canberra tailplane for any of the so far released Canberra kits. It's bugger to make from scratch so i get that many modellers won't want to go through the hassle, but as a resin or 3d insert it should be fairly easy modification.
  2. 71chally
    Ayup Bill, I'm not sure anyone got around to producing the tailplane correction that I proposed, would be great in 3D print but beyond my knowledge and resource. My picture links should still work, can you see those ok? I think there has been other tailplane correction kits, perhaps by TwoMikes? The Matchbox tailplane need further correction or replacement due to the root chord error picked by John Aeroclub many moons back @TeeELL has done some nice Canberra bits aswel. PS, just a thought, I think I still have my prototype tailplane if anyone can produce something from it, in storage at the mo though.
  3. 71chally
    The Viper fit was seperate to the Phase III mod, however MR.3s were at Phase III standard by the time Vipers were fitted, some Phase IIIs were around for 3 or 4 years before Vipers were fitted. A very small number had the Vipers fitted at the same time as they were in for the Phase III update work. For a time these were anotated as Shackleton MR.3 Phase III (Viper). I have seen drawings of the outer nacelle with the Viper, but can't remember where. The CAD work looks great to me @Sebastien
  4. 71chally
    I have got more photos and can access the above Shack but currently in the process of a house move with my possessions in storage. Will try and sort better pictures when able.
  5. 71chally
    I love the concept of thse new Airfix starter kits. I can sit down with my daughters, each with one of these kits, they can build it as simply as they want, I can build mine with as much detail as I want by adding control colums etc. We can build further kits with as much added detail and painting/finishing techniques as we want to add to improve our efforts. But for me the real beauty of these kits is that they are reasonable accurate and well engineered and so are worth us putting whatever time and work that we want to put into them and know that we have a decently accurate result at the end of it.
  6. 71chally
    This is superb news, a 48th Hampden in ICM quality will be fantastic!
  7. 71chally
    I guess you're trying to capture the boxy look of the MR.3 nacelle which was shaped to accomodate the fwd retracting mainwheels of the MR.3. Unsure if these help, Avro Shackleton MR.3 Phase III WR974 K by James Thomas, on Flickr Avro Shackleton MR.3 Phase III WR974 K by James Thomas, on Flickr
  8. 71chally
    That tailpipe and wing trailing edge fillet to fuselage area is awful, I'm not really sure how that can be rectified easily.
  9. 71chally
    Some British jets had glass reinforced fibre strips/tapes at the perspex edges as protection and reinforcement where they bolt into the surrounding metal framework. I don't know if that is what these stripes are on Hunter trainers, but a possibility perhaps.
  10. 71chally
    Please let it be the Phantom, it must be coming soon! Wouldn't the 109E and Beaufighter already be covered in 32nd?
  11. 71chally
    Simply superb, hard to believe that you've returned to modelling after so long. Keep up the momentum!
  12. 71chally
    @Holmsey hopefully these will help, bear in mind they are taken with a flash inside a very dark shed! Fairey Gannet COD.4 XA466 weapons bay by James Thomas, on Flickr Fairey Gannet COD.4 XA466 weapons bay by James Thomas, on Flickr
  13. 71chally
    I could be wrong, but going from that cockpit clearance cut-out these pics suggest that there's an upper and a lower half to the upper mainplane. Really can't wait for this, hopefully this kit, and previous ones like the Walrus, will open up general interest in this era of model aircraft and hopefully more mainstream kits to follow. Not sure at this stage if I'm going to hang on for a MkIIA though.
  14. 71chally
    hmm, interestin'!
  15. 71chally
    https://forum.flitetest.com/index.php?threads/lockheed-l-133-starjet-could-been-americas-first-jet.64915/page-3, can't find evidence of flight though! The axial-flow Lockheed J-37/ L-1000 turbojet engines (one of which survives) were also advanced in concept, especially for an early 1940s design. It seems unbelievable now that the US industry and services would ignore such important airframe and engine technology, indeed choosing to licence produce British centrifugal lumps instead, I wonder if that was the last time that they 'dropped the ball' to lead the development of military technology.
  16. 71chally
    I t has been kitted before, but this one does look nice in the renders.
  17. 71chally
    Yes I agree Duncan, the McD paint issue is known about, but even after the repaint they looked different to the Buccs finish.
  18. 71chally
    Absolutely agree with all you say there. How bad is the Classic Airframes T.11 though? I'm aware their NF.10 was bad, mainly because they tried using too much of the T.11 parts. Looking at built CA T.11s models, they don't suffer the errors that the PR kit clearly does.
  19. 71chally
    It's a Ghost, not a Goblin, many detail differences, particularly the ancillaries layout, the compressor casing front and the size of the combustion chambers. The nacelle is very interesting, it seems very well produced just for training or exhibition purposes, which it had clearly become by the time the picture was taken.
  20. 71chally
    The engine pictured is a de Havilland Ghost, or licenced produced version. Spilt dual intakes depended on the aircraft it was fitted in, example the Venom had bifurcated inlets, the Comet and Saab Tunnan a single inlet. Seen references to Fiat producing the Ghost as the 4001 for the Aquilon, but I've never heard of an Alfa Romeo connection or seen that nacelle fitment before. Interesting picture, would love to know more.
  21. 71chally
    The Classic Airframes one is also far more correct around the rear fuselage pod/ jet pipe area. I wonder if, like Steve mentioned earlier, that the wing chord is too great on the PR kit which has caused knock on issues elsewhere with the pod and wing leading edge design? Can you compare the wing planforms at all @Mike? The wing thickness looks ok at the root, but not great throughout the span. When I looked at the planform in the review pictures it looked like a clunky toy when compared with the planform of the actual jet, sadly.
  22. 71chally
    FAA Buccaneers seemed to stay in pretty good nick when they were in the all over Extra Dark Sea Grey, for some reason they didn't seem to fade or weather as rapidly as Phantoms for example. How a model should be finished is a minefield off course.
  23. 71chally
    Certainly with XA466 the weapons bay is mid grey (an Admiralty Grey?), everything else in RAF Blue Grey. Looking at period photos of other CODs this seems to be generally the same across the fleet, but weapons bay hard to confirm.
  24. 71chally
    ...and here's the 'PX' part, on the folded portion of the port wing. Probably pictured at the same time as the above photo. https://www.alamy.com/the-second-prototype-de-havilland-sea-hornet-px214-with-wings-folded-image504788076.html You can just about read the 'P' on the stb'd wing in this photo de Havilland Sea Hornet F.20 PX214 by James Thomas, on Flickr
  25. 71chally
    Nice picture, I must admit I thought that all 104S were Fiat/Aeritalia developed and built, until now.
×
×
  • Create New...